3M COMPANY: Suit Over Contamination Heads Toward Pivotal Trial--------------------------------------------------------------Even with pretrial rulings that possibly make it harder to obtain class action status, a lawsuit claiming that 3M Company (NYSE: MMM) chemicals contaminated water in Washington County is still shaping up as a critical case, The Pioneer Press reports.

Attorneys for 3M and Washington County residents went back to court to argue eight pretrial motions, several of which are related to each side's access to the other's documents. The plaintiffs, for example, want Maplewood-based 3M to publicly release thousands of pages of company documents, while 3M, in one motion seeks access to the residents' medical records.

Past the flurry of legal filings, though, are larger questions of whether 3M will be held liable for its perfluorochemicals or PFCs making their way into residents' bodies. In addition, a class action settlement of a similar case against DuPont in West Virginia is expected eventually to play a significant role in the Washington County case.

According to Rob Bilott, an attorney representing the Washington County residents, out of the West Virginia settlement, "we hope to have one of the largest studies to date done anywhere" of people who were exposed to PFCs. As part of that settlement, according to Mr. Bilott, who also worked on the West Virginia case, as many as 60,000 people may have their blood tested for PFCs. An independent panel to determine whether health problems abound will then study the results.

Clashing interpretations of medical studies remain a key point of contention in the local case, which revolves around 3M's "Chemolite" plant in Cottage Grove. In its behalf 3M claims that PFCs are not hazardous to humans. Though animal studies show that large amounts of PFCs can damage organs, 3M argues that the amount necessary to cause such damage is much higher than that found in humans.

Last April, Washington County District Judge Stephen Muehlberg granted 3M's motions to dismiss claims for medical monitoring and public nuisance from the lawsuit. Had those claims succeeded, it could have helped the case get class action certification, which would then allow the plaintiffs to argue on behalf of a larger group of people who are "similarly situated."

The original plaintiffs in the local case, Cottage Grove residents Felicia Palmer and Sesario Briseno, filed the suit last fall. Two couples eventually joined them. Gale Pearson, an attorney representing the residents, told The Pioneer Press that the plaintiffs' legal team has recently coordinated PFC blood tests for more than 60 residents in the area. She added, "We expect it to expand as we get documents from 3M and find where (PFCs were) deposited over the last 50 years. People are very interested in what their levels are."

With Judge Muehlberg set to retire soon, Judge Mary Hannon is now handling the Washington County case. Attorneys for the residents say they haven't given up on class action status saying that they still have several intact claims that they intend to argue, including a count of negligence on 3M's part.Rhon Jones, an attorney representing the residents, told The Pioneer Press, "We feel comfortable with those counts, and what we've seen happen in Oakdale and Lake Elmo makes us feel more confident."

Recently, Lake Elmo accepted a $3.3 million grant from 3M to pay for public water extensions. A month earlier, 3M announced it would put a filter on a city of Oakdale well to keep contaminants at a safe level.

Mr. Jones noted that 3M's move to make the water safer came after the lawsuit was filed last October. He told The Pioneer Press, "That to me begs the question of what other communities might be affected and what are the pathways to exposure."

While the attorneys for the Washington County residents argue that 3M's actions show that the chemicals are a problem, 3M says it is just being responsible. These actions include ending production of PFCs, agreeing to treat homeowners' water and providing bottled water for its workers at the Cottage Grove plant.

According to Bill Nelson, a 3M spokesman, "It's important to note that what we're doing in Lake Elmo and Oakdale are just precautionary measures and over the long term it's important to keep the drinking water within the state guidelines. This is the responsible thing to do by a responsible company."

With regards to ending production of PFCs, Mr. Nelson said told The Pioneer Press, "the phase-out decision is based on responsible environmental management, and the fact that we wanted to put our resources into more sustainable technologies."

Though 3M no longer produces PFCs, it uses the chemicals at one of its plants in Antwerp, Belgium. The chemicals are either eliminated in the production process or recaptured at that plant, Mr. Nelson pointed out.

3M started manufacturing PFCs in the late 1940s, using them in stain-resisting products such as Scotchgard and other nonstick-coating applications. It also sold the chemicals to DuPont, which used them at its plant in West Virginia to make Teflon and other nonstick products. 3M decided in 2000 to phase out the production of the chemicals. The Maplewood Company is also facing two lawsuits in Alabama, where 3M had a plant that made PFCs.

AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Parties Submit Revised NY Lawsuit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------Parties submitted revised settlement documents for the consolidated securities class action filed against Airspan Networks, Inc. to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants certain of the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, and:

On and after July 23, 2001, three Class Action Complaints were filed. These suits were later consolidated. The Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

This action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the Company, but allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions. In her Opinion, Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Judge Scheindlin determined that the class period for Section 11 claims is the period between the IPO and the date that unregistered shares entered the market. Judge Scheindlin also ruled that a proper class representative of a Section 11 class must have purchased shares during the appropriate class period; and have either sold the shares at a price below the offering price or held the shares until the time of suit. In two of the six cases, the class representatives did not meet the above criteria and therefore, the Section 11 cases were not certified. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Airspan case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between it, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants and the Individual Defendants currently or formerly associated with those companies. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to contribute the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. Judge Scheindlin ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement.

The suit is styled "In re Airspan Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Parties Submit Revised NY Lawsuit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Parties submitted revised settlement documents for the consolidated securities class action filed against Apropos Technology, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).To the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In November 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in shareholder class action litigation, alleging, among other things, that the underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the Company's stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in the Company's IPO.

The lawsuit further claims that these supposed practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement. In April 2002, an amended complaint was filed which, like the original complaint, alleges violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against the Company have all been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

In July 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. In October 2002, the Court approved a stipulation providing for the dismissal of the individual defendants without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the litigation filed by the Company and the other issuer defendants. The claims against the Company under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws were dismissed with prejudice; the claims under the registration provisions of the securities laws were not dismissed as to the Company or virtually any other issuer defendant. The Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class members certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs. The Company expects that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon obtaining both preliminary and final approval by the Court. Formal settlement documents were submitted to the Court in June 2004, together with a motion asking the Court to preliminarily approve the form of settlement. Certain underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are not parties to the proposed settlement, opposed preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of those cases. The Court has issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in all respects but one. The plaintiffs and the issuer defendants are in the process of assessing whether to proceed with the proposed settlement, as modified by the Court. If the proposed settlement, as modified by the Court, they will submit revised settlement documents to the Court. The underwriter defendants may then have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement documents. If the Court approves the revised settlement documents, it will direct that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and mailed to all proposed class members and schedule a fairness hearing, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re Apropos Technology, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

BSQUARE CORPORATION: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------Parties submitted a revised settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against BSquare Corporation, certain of its current and former officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In Summer and early Fall 2001, four purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from October 19, 1999 to December 6, 2000. The complaints against the Company have been consolidated into a single action and a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 19, 2002 and is now the operative complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in our initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the case.

The Company approved a settlement agreement and related agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between it, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to cover the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. Judge Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion. All of the issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy have approved the revised settlement agreement. The parties have submitted a revised settlement to the Court. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement. If the settlement agreement is not approved and the Company is found liable, the Company is unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than the Company's insurance coverage, and whether such damages would have a material impact on the Company's results of operations or financial condition in any future period.

CITGO PETROLEUM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss MTBE Injury Suits--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the claims in the multidistrict litigation filed against CITGO Petroleum Corporation and other major oil companies, alleging contamination of contamination of private and public water supplies by methyl tertiary butyl ether ("MTBE"), a gasoline additive.

Several federal and state lawsuits were filed against the defendants, alleging that MTBE renders the water not potable. In addition to compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to abate the contamination. The Company's MTBE litigation can be divided into two categories -- pre and post-September 30, 2003 litigation. Of the pre-September 30, 2003 cases, the Company has settled the two pending cases in Madison County, Illinois state court.

The other remaining pre-September 30, 2003 case has been removed to federal court in Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") 1358. The post-September 30, 2003 cases were filed after new federal legislation was proposed that would have precluded plaintiffs from filing lawsuits based on the theory that gasoline with MTBE is a defective product. These approximately 72 cases, the majority of which were filed by municipal authorities, were removed to federal court and at the defendants' request consolidated in MDL 1358.

On March 16, 2004, the judge in MDL 1358 denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the cases to state court. Two plaintiffs have appealed the denial of the remand to state court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appeals Court denied the defendants' motion for summary affirmance of the denial of the remand order and the appeal will proceed. In an April 20, 2005 ruling, the judge refused to dismiss most of the plaintiffs' causes of action. In doing so, the judge held that the plaintiffs might be able to prove liability under a commingled product market share liability theory because the plaintiffs could not identify the particular defendants which had manufactured the gasoline that caused the alleged contamination to drinking water supplies.

DQE INC.: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: In re DQE, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master Files No. 01-1851, on behalf of all individuals who bought DQE, Inc. ("DQE") Common Stock between December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001. DQE is now known as Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc.

The Court will hold the hearing at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, October 7, 2005 at the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Seventh Avenue and Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

DRUGSTORE.COM: Parties Submit Revised Settlement To NY Court ------------------------------------------------------------Parties submit revised settlement documents for the consolidated securities class action filed against drugstore.com, Inc., its underwriters and certain of its present and former officers and directors to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On and after July 6, 2001, eight stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in connection with our July 27, 1999 initial public offering and March 15, 2000 secondary offering (together, the Offerings). The complaints against the Company have been consolidated into a single action and a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period July 28, 1999 to December 6, 2000. In general, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses through which the Company conducted the Offerings were materially false and misleading for failure to disclose, among other things, that:

(1) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares issued in connection with the Offerings and

(2) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in exchange for which customers agreed to purchase additional drugstore.com shares in the after-market at predetermined prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies or their former officers and directors.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based on stipulations of dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other issuer defendants or, in the case of bankrupt issuers, their directors and officers. Among other provisions, the settlement agreement provides for a release of the Company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to the plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. The court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement agreement that provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re drugstore.com, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

DRUGSTORE.COM: Asks WA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------drugstore.com, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its present and former officers.

On and after June 25, 2004, several putative class actions were filed for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The suits purport to have been filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 14, 2004 and June 10, 2004. The complaints generally allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements about our prospects for fiscal year 2004 and failed to disclose, among other things a negative impact on the Company's gross margins from the integration of our acquisition of Vision Direct and from our free 3-day shipping promotion, and a negative impact on its sales growth arising from cancellations of certain expired prescriptions.

On October 8, 2004, the Court issued an order consolidating the individual actions. On November 1, 2004, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. On January 11, 2005, the Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs. On March 15, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on this motion is complete, and the parties are waiting for the Court to set a date fororal argument.

DYNEGY INC.: TX Court Approves Shareholder Fraud Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the settlement for the securities class action filed against Dynegy, Inc., on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities from January 2000 to July 2002 seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The lawsuit as filed principally alleged that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated the federal securities laws in connection with our disclosures, including accounting disclosures, regarding Project Alpha (a structured natural gas transaction entered into by the Company in April 2001), round-trip trading, the submission of false trade reports to publications that calculate natural gas index prices, the alleged manipulation of the California power market and the restatement of the Company's financial statements for 1999-2001. The Regents of the University of California are lead plaintiff and Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP is class counsel.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2004 and, in March 2004, the Company filed motions to dismiss. Briefing on the Company's motions was completed in June 2004. The judge entered an order on the Company's motion in October 2004 dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiff under the Securities Act of 1933, except those relating to the Company's March 2001 note offering and December 2001 common stock offering, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except those dealing with Project Alpha and two alleged round-trip trades. Further, the judge scheduled the trial to commence in May 2005. Also in October 2004, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claim under the Securities Act of 1933 relating to our March 2001 note offering. The parties filed motions on the class certification issue throughout the fourth quarter 2004.

In December 2004, the court issued an order identifying the class period for the Exchange Act claims as June 21, 2001 through July 22, 2002, and the class period for the Securities Act claims to begin December 20, 2001.

In July 2005, the court approved the comprehensive settlement agreement reached by the parties to the class action litigation in April 2005, which provided for an aggregate settlement payment by Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, Inc. of $468 million, comprised of a $150 million cash payment funded by insurance proceeds, a $250 million cash payment by the Company and the issuance by Dynegy, Inc. to the plaintiffs of $68 million in its Class A common stock, consisting of 17,578,781 shares based on a calculation using a volume weighted average stock price for the 20 trading days ending April 15, 2005. Dynegy Holdings was required to make two payments totaling $250 million during 2005, consisting of an initial payment of $175 million, which it paid in May 2005, followed by a second payment of $75 million plus interest upon court approval, which the Company paid in July 2005. As required by the settlement, the Company intends to issue the shares of Class A common stock promptly following expiration of the appeal period which occurred on August 8, 2005.

The resignation of two members of the Dynegy board of directors who are defendants in the litigation, with the vacancies resulting from such resignations to be filled by two new directors from a list of at least five qualified candidates submitted by the lead plaintiff. Dynegy will also nominate such directors for election at Dynegy's next meeting of shareholders at which directors are elected.

In addition, the Company is a nominal defendant in several derivative lawsuits brought by shareholders on the Company's behalf against certain of its former officers and current and former directors whose claims are similar to those described above. These lawsuits have been consolidated into two groups - one pending in federal court and the other pending in state court. A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the federal derivative claim was held in February 2005, at which time the judge indicated his intent to stay or dismiss this matter pending the resolution of the shareholder litigation described above. Subsequently, in February 2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit. Discovery in the state derivative matter is ongoing.

The suit is styled ". The Regents of the University of California v. Dynegy, Inc., et al, case no. 4:02-cv-02374," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Sim Lake. Representing the plaintiffs is Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller et al, 9601 Wilshire Bld, Ste 510 Los Angeles, CA 90210 Phone: 310-859-3100.

DYNEGY INC.: Seeks Transfer of ERISA Fraud Lawsuit To TX Court--------------------------------------------------------------Dynegy, Inc. is seeking to transfer the class action filed in against it the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by three Illinois Power employees and participants in the Illinois Power Company Incentive Savings Plan For Employees Covered Under a Collective Bargaining Agreement, which the Company refers to as the Illinois Power 401(k) Plan, to the Southern District of Texas.

The suit purports to represent all Illinois Power employees who held the Company's common stock through the Illinois Power 401(k) Plan during the period from February 2000 through September 2004. The suit also names as defendants Illinois Power, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (DMG) and several individual defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in connection with the Illinois Power 401(k) Plan, including claims that certain of the Company's former and current officers (who are past and present members of its Benefit Plans Committee) breached their fiduciary duties to the plan's participants and beneficiaries in connection with the plan's investment in Dynegy common stock in a manner similar to that alleged in the complaint filed with respect to the ERISA litigation the Company settled in December 2004 described above. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the losses to the plan, as well as attorney's fees and other costs.

FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Fraud Lawsuit in NC---------------------------------------------------------------Fairpoint Communications, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

Robert Lowinger initially filed the suit on June 6, 2005 in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the State of North Carolina on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons against the Company, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certain of the Company's current and former directors and certain of the Company's stockholders. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act, and alleges that the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 (which was declared effective by the SEC on February 3, 2005) and the related prospectus dated February 3, 2005, each relating to the offering, contained certain material misstatements and omitted certain material information necessary to be included relating to the Company's broadband products and access line trends.

The plaintiff, who has been a plaintiff in several prior securities cases, seeks rescission rights and unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the common stock "issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO during the period from February 3, 2005 through March 21, 2005." The Company has removed the action to Federal Court but the plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the action to the North Carolina State Court.

FLORIDA: Judge Grants Certification To Residents' Canker Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Thanks to a Circuit Judge William McIver's decision to approve a canker-related class action lawsuit that could go to trial within the next year or two, thousands of Lee County residents could get more cash for their chopped citrus trees, according to attorneys for both sides, The News-Press reports.

In his ruling, Judge McIver wrote that it makes more sense to have one large class action suit than potentially thousands of individual suits clogging up the courts. The suit, filed by seven Cape Coral residents, claims that the state does not pay people enough for their chopped trees.

One of the plaintiffs, Dee Klockow, who hadn't heard about the decision until recently told The News-Press, "I am absolutely elated," adding that, "This gives me confidence in the legal system." Ms. Klockow, who lost five citrus trees in early 2003, reiterated that she did not file the lawsuit for personal gain. She told The News-Press, "This is for everybody. This is for the whole county." She also adds, "It doesn't matter if we only get 10 cents. That's not the point."

Originally, Lee residents got a $100 Wal-Mart voucher for their first tree chopped by state chain-saw crews, plus $55 for every tree after that. However, the state agriculture department recently ran out of money for the voucher program, thus leaving about 7,000 county residents without vouchers. There is still about $5.3 million left in the cash program though. The plaintiffs' attorney, Robert Gilbert, wants the Florida Department of Agriculture to pay an average of $750-$1,000 for each tree.

The class action lawsuit only covers healthy, "canker-exposed" trees that stand near canker-infected trees. State crews chop down those trees, also, to stop the spread of canker. The contagious bacterial disease first appeared in southeast Cape Coral in 2002. Since then, crews have cut more than 32,000 trees in Cape Coral, Pine Island and Fort Myers. Most of those are healthy residential citrus trees. With the class certification, Lee residents at about 12,000 homes and businesses automatically become part of the lawsuit.

Some of them though are not thrilled at the prospect. "I think it would be nice if we could get some extra money," echoes Gloria Jokie, 65, of North Fort Myers. "But this (canker eradication) is something that has to be done. It's not the state's fault that canker came." Mrs. Jokie, who lost three healthy citrus trees in February called the plaintiffs whiners who should have let things be. She told The News-Press, "Get over it. They don't owe you anything."

Though canker doesn't hurt humans, it does lead to blemished fruit, weakened trees and premature fruit drop. It's also considered a serious threat to Florida's $9 billion citrus industry.

HOMETOWN AUTO: Faces NJ Suit For Registration Fee Overcharging--------------------------------------------------------------Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. d/b/a Muller Toyota, Inc. has been named as one of 1,667 defendants in a complaint filed by Maryann Cerbo, et. al. in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County.

The action has been brought on behalf of about 111 named plaintiffs and, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals and companies who have purchased or leased a motor vehicle from the defendants. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants:

(4) failed to disclose that the defendants are not required to perform certain documentary services.

It appears from the complaint that plaintiffs have attempted to name as defendants all franchised automobile dealers in the State of New Jersey, as well as a large assortment of other persons and entities. There are no allegations that the Company ever performed any services for any of the plaintiffs. The complaint makes certain class action allegations and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as well as common law fraud. The Court has dismissed the portions of the complaint alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud and conspiracy to commit common law fraud.

HOMETOWN AUTO: Shareholder Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE----------------------------------------------------------------Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The suit also names as defendants its directors:

(1) Corey E. Shaker,

(2) William C. Muller, Jr.,

(3) Joseph Shaker,

(4) Bernard J. Dzinski, Jr.,

(5) Steven A. Fournier,

(6) H. Dennis Lauzon and

(7) Timothy C. Moynihan.

Plaintiffs Steven N. Bronson, Louis J. Meade and Leonard Hagan purport to bring the action individually, derivatively and as a class action on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company's Class A shares. The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the directors and controlling stockholders have breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Class A stockholders, have failed to seek a transaction that would maximize value for Hometown and all it stockholders, and have initiated a transaction that is not fair to the Company and its public stockholders. The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, including, rescission of the Exchange Agreement, a preliminary and permanent injunction the Exchange Agreement transactions, a declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties, a constructive trust on any assets transferred pursuant to the Exchange Agreement transactions, damages for the injury suffered by plaintiffs and the Class as a result of defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, certification of the action as a class action, and an order requiring defendants to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

IBASIS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Investor Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against iBasis, Inc., certain of its officers, directors, former officers and directors, and the investment banking firms that underwrote its November 10,1999 initial public offering of the common stock and its March 9, 2000 secondary offering of the common stock.

Beginning July 11, 2001, several suits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock during different time periods, all beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending on or before December 6, 2000. The complaints are similar to each other and to hundreds of other complaints filed against other issuers and their underwriters, and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the assertion that there was undisclosed compensation received by the Company's underwriters in connection with its public offerings and that there were understandings with customers to make purchases in the aftermarket. The plaintiffs have sought an undetermined amount of monetary damages in relation to these claims.

On September 4, 2001, the cases against the Company were consolidated. On October 9, 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed from the litigation by stipulation and without prejudice. On June 11, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants, as well as many other issuers named as defendants in the class action proceeding, entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle this matter, and on June 14, 2004, this settlement was presented to the court. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed and is pending. Once the court preliminarily approves the settlement and notice has been mailed, there will be an objection period, followed by a hearing for final approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange for a termination and release of all claims against the Company and the individual defendants and certain protections against third-party claims, the Company will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims it may have as an issuer against the underwriters, and its insurance carriers, along with the insurance carriers of the other issuers, will ensure a floor of $1 billion for any underwriter-plaintiff settlement.

The suit is styled "In re iBasis, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10120 (Sas)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

LOUISIANA: Resident Sues Orleans Levee District Over Breaches-------------------------------------------------------------A lawsuit initiated against the Orleans Levee District alleges that the breaches in the levees along the 17th Street and London Avenue canals during Hurricane Katrina were the result of poor design, faulty construction, or both, The 2theadvocate.com reports.

The failure of the flood protection system resulted in the flooding of thousands of homes in New Orleans, including the one owned by Kelvin Slaton, who filed the suit. Court records show that floodwaters chased Mr. Slaton to the attic of his home and then to the roof, where the U.S. Coast Guard eventually rescued him.

Mr. Slaton's lawsuit maintains that the levee should have been able to withstand a storm surge greater than 14 feet and hurricane winds up to 130 mph. Instead, a 500-foot breach in the 17th Street levee allowed waters from Lake Pontchartrain to flow into New Orleans.

According to the suit, Hurricane Katrina made landfall about 20 miles east of New Orleans and by the time it reached Lake Pontchartrain, the winds were 95 mph and the storm surge was less than 13 feet. "In fact, the levee system failed after the passage of Hurricane Katrina," the suit contends. The suit further claims that the levee system was flawed partially because the levee walls were not interlocked and because there was no top railing or similar system to bind the walls together.

Mr. Slaton is asking that his suit be granted class action status, since there are others who suffered damages as a result of the same problems alleged in the lawsuit. In addition, Mr. Slaton, who is being represented by being represented by Neblett, Beard and Arsenault of Alexandria; the Pendley Law Firm of Plaquemine; and Baton Rouge attorney Philip Bohrer, is also seeking damages and attorney fees. Though no hearing date was scheduled, the case has been assigned to state District Judge Don Johnson. It was the second filed in East Baton Rouge Parish in connection with Hurricane Katrina.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose information regarding the risk of the Company infringing intellectual property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

The Company is currently unable to assess the possible range or extent of damages and/or other relief, if any, that could be awarded to the shareholder class; therefore, no contingent liability has been recorded on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of July 3, 2005.

MERCK & CO.: Firm Lodges Vioxx Suit on Behalf of South Africans---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed the first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of South Africa who died or were seriously injured by the pain medication Vioxx.

The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. of failing to properly research the known risks of Vioxx and warn South African consumers of potentially fatal side effects. "Vioxx should never have been marketed in the first place," said Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first worldwide class action regarding Vioxx last fall.

On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from all worldwide markets after studies showed a three-fold risk of heart attack and stroke. "Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market came years after the company first learned of the health risks," said Mr. Moll. "Countless individuals in South Africa and around the world have suffered severe and fatal injuries which could have been avoided if Merck had acted responsibly." On August 19, 2005, a Texas jury awarded $253.5 million to a widow of a man who died after taking Vioxx. "The verdict clearly shows Merck's culpability in their decision to put profits ahead of the safety of their consumers," said Mr. Moll.

MY OVERHEAD: Locklear Lodges Fourth Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes---------------------------------------------------------------Locklear Electric of Wood River is suing My Overhead Corporation of Tallmadge, Ohio, in its fourth class action lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court this year, alleging that unsolicited faxes it received unfairly used its paper, toner ink and electricity, The Madison County Record reports.

According to Locklear's September 26 filing, My Overhead Corporation sent an advertisement via fax on May 18, without obtaining "prior express invitation or permission." Represented by Lanny Darr of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr of Alton, Locklear alleges the unsolicited fax violates the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (FTCPA) and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, which provides that it is unlawful for any person to use a fax machine to send an unsolicited advertisement. Locklear claims that My Overhead "willfully" sent or caused to be sent unsolicited fax advertisements, and therefore is liable for $1,500 in damages for each separate unsolicited fax sent. It is thus seeking an injunction to prohibit and prevent future violations. To keep the case in state court and thus comply with the Class Action Fairness Act, the suit claims that "the aggregate of the class is less than $5 million" and no member of the class is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.

Previously, Locklear initiated similar class action complaints against National Association of Preferred Providers on February 23, which was just five days after President George W. Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act into law, against Inprovenet on April 18, and Kensington Lighting Corporation of Greensburg, Pennsylvania on August 10.

NETGEAR INC.: Consumers Launch Two Fraud Lawsuits in CA Court-------------------------------------------------------------NETGEAR, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the Superior Court of California, county of Santa Clara, on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased the Company's wireless products other than for resale.

In June 2004, a lawsuit, entitled "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil Action CV021230," was filed, alleging that the Company made false representations concerning the data transfer speeds of its wireless products when used in typical operating circumstances, and is requesting injunctive relief, payment of restitution and reasonable attorney fees. Limited discovery is currently under way and no trial date has been set.

In February 2005, a lawsuit, entitled "McGrew v. NETGEAR," was filed in the same court, making the same allegations and purports to represent the same class of persons and entities as the Zilberman suit.

The suit's plaintiffs, the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) and the National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA) -- represent hundreds of thousands of drug stores, convenience stores and food stores across the United States that accept Visa and MasterCard as a form of payment.

In the United States, interchange is the largest component of credit card fees and has a significant impact on American consumers, who are affected by interchange rates that are among the highest in the world. Interchange rates cost the average American household approximately $232 a year in 2004.

When consumers purchase goods or services with a credit card, the payment is processed through the merchant's bank and the bank that issued the consumer the credit card. The issuing bank charges the merchant's bank a fee to process the transaction. The merchant's bank then adds its own fee for processing the transaction, and passes on both of these fees -- collectively known as interchange -- to the merchant.

"The credit card interchange system serves as a hidden tax, both on merchants and consumers, and raises the costs of all products regardless of the form of tender," said Hank Armour, CEO of the National Association of Convenience Stores. "And these credit card interchange fees have rapidly increased over the past several years, despite efforts by individual convenience stores to control these costs or make the competitive market work."

Interchange fees are meant to cover the cost of processing a credit card transaction and the risk taken by the issuing bank that the credit will not be repaid. However, the plaintiffs say that both fraud costs and the cost of processing are steadily decreasing, while U.S. interchange rates continue to increase. Interchange fees are substantially higher in the United States than almost any other industrialized country. Other countries have taken action to address the market problem created by these monopolies. Recent changes in Australia and countries in Europe, for example, have decreased rates from about 0.95 percent to about 0.55 percent.

"Credit card interchange fees are the third-largest expense for many chain drug stores after rent and the cost of labor," said Craig Fuller, CEO of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. "These costs have skyrocketed over the past years even though the costs of credit card transactions for the banks have fallen. NACDS weighed many options in dealing with this issue and decided to seek litigation only after careful deliberations, with the ultimate recognition that it was necessary for the long-term reform of the system," added Mr. Fuller.

The suit's plaintiffs added they would seek damages and injunctive relief to stop the alleged anticompetitive practices of banks and credit card companies.

"We are not seeking some form of temporary relief; we are looking for long-term reform of the credit card interchange fee system," said John Rector, General Counsel of the National Community Pharmacists Association. "The current system discriminates against small, independent businesspersons, and there is no basis for that discrimination. We ultimately seek a competitive and fair interchange fee system. Interchange is much higher in the United States than any other country, and there is no legitimate basis for that."

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP.

The suit is styled, National Association of Convenience Stores et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-04521-JG-RLM, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, with the Honorable John Gleeson, presiding. Neal A. Deyoung of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, 350 Fairfield Ave., P.O. Box 1661, Bridgeport, CT 06604, Phone: 203-336-4421, Fax: 203-368-3244, E-mail: ndeyoung@koskoff.com.

For more details, contact Michelle McKenna of NACDS, Phone: +1-703-837-4234; Jeff Lenard of NACS, Phone: +1-703-518-4272; or John Rector of NCPA, Phone: +1-703-683-6375.

ONVIA.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Onvia.com, Inc., former executive officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert, and its lead underwriter, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB).

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The complaint charged defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The complaint alleged that the Registration Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading because they failed to disclose:

(1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Onvia shares in the initial public offering (IPO) in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions; and

(2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under which the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Onvia shares in the after-market at predetermined prices.

The complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well as attorney fees. On October 9, 2002, an order of dismissal without prejudice was entered, dismissing former officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert. In June 2003, Onvia, along with most of the companies named as defendants in this litigation, accepted a settlement proposal negotiated among plaintiffs, underwriters and issuers. The major points of the settlement are:

(iii) companies will agree not to assert pricing claims or claims for indemnification against the underwriters;

(iv) companies and their officers and directors will be released from any further litigation relating to these claims; and

(v) companies will agree to cooperate in any document discovery.

The final settlement agreement must be negotiated and approved by the court. If the final settlement is approved, the Company will be released from any future liability under this lawsuit.

The suit is styled "In re Onvia.com, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

SANDISK CORPORATION: Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal Appeal---------------------------------------------------------------The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action filed against Sandisk Corporation, in its role as a shareholder and director of Tower Semiconductor, Ltd.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of United States holders of ordinary shares of Tower as of the close of business on April 1, 2002. The suit, captioned "Philippe de Vries, Julia Frances Dunbar De Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. 03 CV 4999," was filed against Tower and certain of its shareholders and directors, including the Company and Eli Harari, the Company's President and CEO and a Tower board member.

The suit asserts claims arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated there under. The lawsuit alleges that Tower and certain of its directors made false and misleading statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower shareholders regarding a proposed amendment to a contract between Tower and certain of its shareholders, including the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

On August 19, 2004, the judge granted the Company and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice. On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal will likely be decided sometime in 2005.

SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court-------------------------------------------------------------Sandisk Corporation and a number of other manufacturers offlash memory products face a consumer class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco captioned Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et al.

The suit alleges false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products. The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount.

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in AZ--------------------------------------------------------------TASER International, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face a consolidated class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of federal securities law.

On January 10, 2005, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, captioned "Malasky v. TASER International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05 CV 115." Since then, numerous other securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the District of Arizona. Four actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and one in the Eastern District of Michigan. The New York and Michigan actions were transferred to the District of Arizona. The cases were recently consolidated, and the court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to an order entered by the court, defendants need not respond to any of the complaints originally filed in these actions. The lead plaintiff will file an amended consolidated complaint, to which Defendants will respond.

These actions are filed on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's stock in various class periods, beginning as early as May 29, 2003 and ending as late as January 14, 2005. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief against all defendants. The complaints allege generally that the Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding, among other things, the safety of the Company's products and the Company's ability to meet its sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5 million sales order with one of the Company's distributors in the fourth quarter of 2004.

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Personal Injury, Wrongful Death Suits----------------------------------------------------------------TASER International, Inc. was named as a defendant in 35 lawsuits in which the plaintiffs alleged either wrongful death or personal injury in situations in which the TASER device was used (or present) by law enforcement officers or during training exercises.

Three of the cases are firearms-related death cases and not death allegedly caused by Taser device. One case is a class action - presently believed to be a class of one. One case has been dismissed by summary judgment order, two cases have been dismissed with prejudice, another case was dismissed without prejudice but has been refiled, and the balance of the cases are pending.

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages from the Company. In one case the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief in addition to monetary damages. Cases are being submitted for the defense of each of these lawsuits to the Company's insurance carriers as the Company maintained during these periods and continue to maintain product liability insurance coverage with varying limits and deductibles.

The suits are:

(1) Del-Ostia, filed in March 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Wrongful death lawsuit - dismissed with prejudice

(2) Alvarado, filed in April 2003 in the California Superior Court, wrongful death lawsuit - now in discovery phase

(3) City of Madera, filed in June 2003 in California Superior Court, wrongful death suit - dismissed by summary judgment

(4) Borden, filed in September 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, wrongful death suit - discovery phase

(35) Nowell, filed in August 2005 in the United States District Court, Northern District, Texas, Wrongful Death suit - Complaint Served

THEGLOBE.COM: Parties Submit Revised Suit Settlement To NY Court ----------------------------------------------------------------Parties submitted a revised settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against TheGlobe.com, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors and several investment banks that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On and after August 3, 2001 and as of the date of this filing, six putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period from November 12, 1998 through December 6, 2000. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

On December 5, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions, alleging the same conduct described above in connection with the Company's November 23, 1998 initial public offering and its May 19, 1999 secondary offering. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New York on April 19, 2002. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 19, 2003, a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company was denied by the Court. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in theglobe.com case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the Company, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re TheGlobe.com, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

VI TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------VI Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed against it in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On February 1, 2005, a former employee of the Melville plasma processing plant which was divested to Precision Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Precision) in August 2001, filed the suit alleging that the Company underpaid overtime pay to this employee while he was employed by the Company in its Melville plant. On February 18, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the claim and, based on a review of the employee's payroll records, believe that any overtime pay due to this employee would have been less than $1,000. On April 5, 2005, the court conditionally denied the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the employee thirty days to file an amended complaint that more clearly specified the defendants responsible to pay him the overtime he alleged he was owed and the relevant time periods.

On May 5, 2005, the employee filed his amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Precision. The amended complaint included federal and state overtime claims, as well as an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claim. The employee also alleged that the Company insufficiently funded his 401(k) account. On May 10, 2005, the employee filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Precision. The second amended complaint contained the same claims as the amended complaint. In June 2005, the suit was discontinued with prejudice.

The Company has reached agreement to settle the suit. The terms of the settlement are confidential and its amount is not material to the financial statements.

A former employee of the Company's Melville plant filed the suit in February 2005. Vitex divested the Melville plant to Precision Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in August 2001. Precision is also a party to the suit. The suit is a class action in which the lead plaintiff, representing the class, claims the Company underpaid overtime to employees of the processing plant. The complaint alleges an amount in excess of $125,000 in unpaid overtime plus the costs of the action and reasonable attorney's fees due from the two defendants.

On February 23, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint. That motion is currently pending before the court. The Company is in the process of analyzing employee payroll records for the period in question, which, based on the statute of limitations, it believes to be from approximately February 1999 to August 2001, and the Company intends to contest the claim vigorously.

VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff Seek Consolidation of MA Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to consolidated eight securities class actions filed in March and April 2005 against Viisage Technology, Inc., Bernard C. Bailey, William K. Aulet and Denis K. Berube and other members of the Company's Board of Directors.

A motion has been filed by the so-called Turnberry Groupto consolidate these lawsuits into one action under the case name: "Darquea v. Viisage Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW." This motion also seeks to have the Turnberry Group designated as lead plaintiff and its counsel designated as lead counsel.

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and directors arising out of purported misrepresentations in the guidance that the Company provided on its anticipated financial results for fiscal 2004 following the release of its 2004 second and third quarter results, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during the period May 3, 2004 through March 2, 2005.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Viisage Technology, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-10438," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

WAL-MART STORES: Quebec Court Delays Ruling on Employee's Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Quebec's Superior Court delayed ruling on whether a former Wal-Mart employee can go ahead with a class action lawsuit on behalf of 190 workers who lost their jobs when the retail giant shut their unionized outlet, The Canadian Press reports.

Workers at the Saguenay, Quebec store became the first Wal-Mart employees to unionize since a Windsor, Ontario outlet was briefly accredited in the 1990s. The Arkansas-based retailer though closed the Quebec store before the workers could obtain a collective agreement.

The class action lawsuit calls for Wal-Mart to pay up to $20,000 in compensation to each of the store's workers for damages resulting from the store's closure.

Attorneys representing Wal-Mart argued at a recent hearing that the Quebec Superior Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case pointing out that it should be up to province's labour relations board to deal with the lawsuit because it relates to elements in the Quebec Labour Code.

According to Alexandre Buswell, one of Wal-Mart's attorneys in the case, "The essence of the litigation surrounds the right to unionize and the rights and obligations of the employees." He contends that the labour board had already dealt with complaints stemming from the decision to close the outlet.

In its September 16 decision, the board ruled that Wal-Mart didn't prove that the unionized store was in financial trouble when it closed last spring.

The union had argued the closure of the Saguenay store, 250 kilometers north of Quebec City, was designed to intimidate other workers who might want to unionize.

Attorneys representing the employee who filed the lawsuit told the court at a recent hearing that the class action lawsuit wasn't being filed under the province's labour code, but under its charter of rights and freedoms as well as its civil code.

The judge is expected to rule on Wal-Mart's request in the coming days.

On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to orders entered July 1, 2005, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all counts in the complaint. Thus, this action has now been dismissed, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a notice of appeal within the required time period. On August 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to re-enter the orders to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal.

VERDISYS INC.: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Verdisys, Inc. (now known as Blast Energy Services, Inc.) reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company and its former CEO, Dan Williams, and its former CFO, Andrew Wilson, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The lawsuits alleged that the defendants had made material misstatements about the Company's financial results. More specifically, the Complaints alleged that the defendants had failed to disclose and indicate:

(1) that the Company had materially overstated our net income and earnings per share;

(2) that the Company prematurely recognized revenue from contracts between it, Edge and Energy 2000 NGC, Inc. in violation of GAAP and its own revenue recognition policy;

(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the company; and

(4) that as a result of recognizing revenue prematurely, its financial results were inflated at all relevant times.

Under terms of the agreement, the Company will issue to the class 1,150,000 shares of common stock and pay up to $55,000 in legal and administrative fees for the plaintiffs.

The suit is styled "Harper v. Verdisys Inc, et al, case no. 4:04-cv-01297," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Sim Lake. Representing the Company is Michael T. Larkin of Adams and Reese 1221 McKinney Ste 4400 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-308-0166 Fax: 713-652-5152 E-mail: michael.larkin@arlaw.com. Representing the plaintiffs are:

ZIPREALTY INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Agents' Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Ziprealty, Inc. reached a settlement for the a class action filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Central Division, styled "Sullivan, et al v. ZipRealty case number GIC851801. Two former employee agents for the Company filed the suit, alleging, among other things, that the Company's s expense allowance policies violate California law.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle this claim in exchange for the Company's payment of $4,164,000. That agreement is expected to include a full release from any further liability on this issue and is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval.

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in OH-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the securities of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company") (NYSE:ANF) between May 17, 2005 and August 16, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Abercrombie securities. The Complaint names as defendants Abercrombie, Michael S. Jeffries, Robert Singer and Michael W. Kramer. The Complaint alleges that Abercrombie

(1) carried out a scheme to deceive the investing public;

(2) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; and

(3) engaged in acts, practices and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers of the Company's securities in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices for Abercrombie securities.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the class period, Abercrombie made positive public announcements about its monthly and quarterly sales results while, at the same time they did not reveal that the Company's margins, a material indicator of the Company's true financial condition, would be lower in its 2005 second fiscal quarter. In July 2005, Abercrombie's Chairman and CEO sold more than 1.6 million shares of Abercrombie common stock reaping $118 million in profits based on negative, material Company information known to him, but unknown to Plaintiff and the Class. Following the revelation of the material, undisclosed information, Abercrombie's common stock price plummeted, resulting in substantial losses to shareholders.

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARBX) ("Arbinet" or the "Company") who bought pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or about December 16, 2004 and between December 16, 2004, and June 21, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., J. Curt Hockemeier and John J. Roberts with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

(1) that Arbinet was experiencing a shorter than average call duration and a mix shift to wireless calls from wired calls, which led to a decrease in the average number of minutes the Company transacted on the exchange;

(2) that the Company due to credit problems was forced to suspend trading for two of its largest customers;

(3) that the Company's international offerings were not adequately differentiated from its competitors, thereby jeopardizing Arbinet's ability to grow abroad; and

(4) that a result of the foregoing, the defendant's positive statements about the Company's condition and progress lacked in all reasonable basis.

On June 21, 2005, Arbinet lowered its guidance for both the second quarter and all of 2005. On this news, shares of Arbinet fell $4.00 per share, or 34.78 percent, on June 22, 2005, to close at $7.50 per share.

DHB INDUSTRIES: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or the "Company") (AMEX:DHB) securities during the period from April 21, 2004 through August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges DHB and certain of its senior officers with violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class Period -- of artificially inflating the price of DHB's shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company issued numerous statements concerning the quality of the Company's bulletproof vests. Recently, DHB announced it would stop manufacturing and selling certain of its vests due to their being decertified by a government agency and took a write-off. On August 30, 2005, DHB announced that it would take a charge of up to $60 million in the third quarter to discontinue production of certain bullet-proof vests because of safety concerns. Following this announcement, on August 30, 2005, shares of DHB fell $1.56 per share, or 23.42 percent, to close at $5.10 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

DHB INDUSTRIES: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against DHB Industries, Inc. (Amex: DHB) and individual defendants. Purchasers of DHB securities between April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") are members of the purported class. DHB designs, develops, manufactures and markets protective armor through its subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. and Protective Apparel Corporation of America.

The complaint filed on September 9, 2005 by Scott + Scott alleges that during the Class Period, DHB and certain individual defendants, including CEO David Brooks, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements or failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about DHB. Defendants' fraudulent scheme, it is alleged:

(1) deceived the investing public regarding DHB's prospects and business;

(3) caused members of the Class to purchase DHB's publicly traded securities at inflated prices.

It is also alleged that while DHB's securities were artificially inflated, insiders sold over $220 million of common stock.

A September 8, 2005 article about DHB appearing in The Motley Fool and authored by Seth Jayson states: "Now that (DHB) has cratered to one-fourth its former high price, I don't see any insider buying. Instead, I see insiders granting themselves a giant pile of warrants, including a ludicrous 1.5 million to (CEO David) Brooks at a $1 strike price, vesting immediately -- with another 750,000 vesting each year until 2010 ... Mix in overly generous housing and personal benefits and a slew of creepy related-part transactions that enrich family members, and you can only come to the conclusion that Brooks believes that what's his is his, and what's yours is his too."

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Suit in NY Over American Mutual Funds---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased American mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The American mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio .In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Fraud Suit Over Davis Mutual Funds----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Davis mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio .In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Dreyfus Mutual Funds---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Dreyfus mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio .In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Eaton Vance Mutual Funds----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Eaton Vance mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Eaton Vance mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio .In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Suit in NY Over Fidelity Mutual Funds---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Fidelity mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Fidelity mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio .In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Franklin Mutual Funds----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Franklin mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Franklin mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio .In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files NY Suit Over Oppenheimer Mutual Funds---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Oppenheimer mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Oppenheimer mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows:

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio .In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.